FLAIR NOT PAYING PILOTS FOR WORK

[TFTMB heavy]

I don't normally engage with you Ape, but since that's a respectfully put question I'll answer it.

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Total TAFB 48:15.

There is no trip (TAFB) rig in the CBA, so credit is paid strictly for the flight time, for a total of 9:30 and it has nothing to do with the trip being 48 hours or less (which it isn't). It's also almost exactly 2 days and not 3, although it does touch three calendar days, but that is irrelevant for pay purposes as you pointed out.

However, in the event that a pilot is away from base on a calendar day that has no duty, there is a minimum of 4 credit hours per day guarantee. In this particular pairing, there is no day (defined as a calendar day from 0000-2359) that does not have a duty on it, so the only credit generated is the flight credit.

If the check-in in YVR was 3 hours later (due to a delayed flight for example) and check-in was after midnight, then the second day would not have a duty assigned to it and it would generate an additional credit of 4 hours for a total of 13:30.

On any calendar day that does not have a flight duty pilots would be credited for 4 hours. If there is a flight duty, then they get credited for that instead. For example, if there was a YYZ-YUL-YYZ redeye turn that left at 2300 on day one and returned at 0400 on day 2, it spans 2 calendar days but there is a flight duty on both days. In that case, the pilot would not get 8 hours credit, but the flight credit for YUL and back, or 4 hours minimum.

Sometimes this will work in the favour of the pilot, sometimes not. If a pilot calls sick for the YKF-YVR-YKF pairing for example they are only using 2 sick days vs 3. If the YVR -YKF leg had a show time of 0001 on day 3 then an additional 4 credit hours would be awarded for no additional work.

If there is a calendar day in the middle of a pairing with no duty on it then pilots get 4 credit hours in accordance with the CBA.

I am confident that pilots are being correctly credited and paid in accordance with the CBA. Whether the CBA adequately compensates pilots for the YKF-YVR paring or not is a completely different topic, but there is no conspiracy to not pay pilots according to the contract.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much if you're getting these pairings because you're guaranteed your MMG of 85 hours in a month. If you had a month of these you could only do 6 total. If it paid 12 that's 72 hours, if it pays 9.5 then you'd get 57 hours credit. Either scenario you end up with your MMG of 85 and get paid the same. The only time it would matter is if you had one or two of these (each one burns 3 of your max 18 days) and you managed to get so much credit in your remaining pairings that you'd be over 85 hours and into OT.

From a management perspective, that pairing is a terribly inefficient use of pilot productivity and we'd like to see it go away.

I think you might not win this one in arbitration, given the definition is a calendar day and for the purpose of that even though the duty begins on the second calendar day, it finishes on the third. You even state for the monthly total days worked it counts as three days, you seem to have it both ways. There is a min credit per calendar day and at the very least the credit assigned is the credit earned in that calendar day.
The company absolutely is taking advantage of no duty rig, period!

P.S. When the company takes liberties with contract language, I think you’ll find many pilots will take advantage of the only two days of sick time.. probably a higher percentage of book offs for said pairing.

Again, the fact that this burns three days of a pilot's maximum of 18 works in the favour of the pilot, not the company.

There is no minimum credit for a calendar day if there is a duty assigned. See the example of a YUL redeye spanning 2 calendar days. It does not pay a min of 4 credits for each day. See the edit to my original post that makes all of this irrelevant in any case because almost every pilot operating these pairings is getting paid MMG regardless because they are so inefficient.

There is a minimum duty credit of 4 hours. or if there is no duty on a day away from base, then also 4 hours. We're happy to take this one to arbitration, but I'd suggest you'd need to show some language to support the assertion that there is a 4-credit minimum per calendar day that has a flight duty assigned.

There are no liberties being taken with contract language. We're following it exactly.

Can you point out the clause that supports this interpretation of yours?

[Yogi21]

I don't normally engage with you Ape, but since that's a respectfully put question I'll answer it.

The pairing in question is:

Day 1 Show YKF 0530L Checkout YVR 0855L. Credit 5:10
Day 2 Show YVR 2110L Checkout YKF 0545L +1 Credit 4:20

Total TAFB 48:15.

There is no trip (TAFB) rig in the CBA, so credit is paid strictly for the flight time, for a total of 9:30 and it has nothing to do with the trip being 48 hours or less (which it isn't). It's also almost exactly 2 days and not 3, although it does touch three calendar days, but that is irrelevant for pay purposes as you pointed out.

However, in the event that a pilot is away from base on a calendar day that has no duty, there is a minimum of 4 credit hours per day guarantee. In this particular pairing, there is no day (defined as a calendar day from 0000-2359) that does not have a duty on it, so the only credit generated is the flight credit.

If the check-in in YVR was 3 hours later (due to a delayed flight for example) and check-in was after midnight, then the second day would not have a duty assigned to it and it would generate an additional credit of 4 hours for a total of 13:30.

On any calendar day that does not have a flight duty pilots would be credited for 4 hours. If there is a flight duty, then they get credited for that instead. For example, if there was a YYZ-YUL-YYZ redeye turn that left at 2300 on day one and returned at 0400 on day 2, it spans 2 calendar days but there is a flight duty on both days. In that case, the pilot would not get 8 hours credit, but the flight credit for YUL and back, or 4 hours minimum.

Sometimes this will work in the favour of the pilot, sometimes not. If a pilot calls sick for the YKF-YVR-YKF pairing for example they are only using 2 sick days vs 3. If the YVR -YKF leg had a show time of 0001 on day 3 then an additional 4 credit hours would be awarded for no additional work.

If there is a calendar day in the middle of a pairing with no duty on it then pilots get 4 credit hours in accordance with the CBA.

I am confident that pilots are being correctly credited and paid in accordance with the CBA. Whether the CBA adequately compensates pilots for the YKF-YVR paring or not is a completely different topic, but there is no conspiracy to not pay pilots according to the contract.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter much if you're getting these pairings because you're guaranteed your MMG of 85 hours in a month. If you had a month of these you could only do 6 total. If it paid 12 that's 72 hours, if it pays 9.5 then you'd get 57 hours credit. Either scenario you end up with your MMG of 85 and get paid the same. The only time it would matter is if you had one or two of these (each one burns 3 of your max 18 days) and you managed to get so much credit in your remaining pairings that you'd be over 85 hours and into OT.

From a management perspective, that pairing is a terribly inefficient use of pilot productivity and we'd like to see it go away.

I think you might not win this one in arbitration, given the definition is a calendar day and for the purpose of that even though the duty begins on the second calendar day, it finishes on the third. You even state for the monthly total days worked it counts as three days, you seem to have it both ways. There is a min credit per calendar day and at the very least the credit assigned is the credit earned in that calendar day.
The company absolutely is taking advantage of no duty rig, period!

P.S. When the company takes liberties with contract language, I think you’ll find many pilots will take advantage of the only two days of sick time.. probably a higher percentage of book offs for said pairing.

Again, the fact that this burns three days of a pilot's maximum of 18 works in the favour of the pilot, not the company.

There is no minimum credit for a calendar day if there is a duty assigned. See the example of a YUL redeye spanning 2 calendar days. It does not pay a min of 4 credits for each day. See the edit to my original post that makes all of this irrelevant in any case because almost every pilot operating these pairings is getting paid MMG regardless because they are so inefficient.

There is a minimum duty credit of 4 hours. or if there is no duty on a day away from base, then also 4 hours. We're happy to take this one to arbitration, but I'd suggest you'd need to show some language to support the assertion that there is a 4-credit minimum per calendar day that has a flight duty assigned.

There are no liberties being taken with contract language. We're following it exactly.

Hi tbalyx. You say min 4 credit per day is being given to pilots if no duty assigned. Please explain this 5 day pairing YVR-CUN-YVR where pilots are not getting min 4 daily credit on DAY 2,3,4.

Please see image below

[tbaylx]

I think you might not win this one in arbitration, given the definition is a calendar day and for the purpose of that even though the duty begins on the second calendar day, it finishes on the third. You even state for the monthly total days worked it counts as three days, you seem to have it both ways. There is a min credit per calendar day and at the very least the credit assigned is the credit earned in that calendar day.
The company absolutely is taking advantage of no duty rig, period!

P.S. When the company takes liberties with contract language, I think you’ll find many pilots will take advantage of the only two days of sick time.. probably a higher percentage of book offs for said pairing.

Again, the fact that this burns three days of a pilot's maximum of 18 works in the favour of the pilot, not the company.

There is no minimum credit for a calendar day if there is a duty assigned. See the example of a YUL redeye spanning 2 calendar days. It does not pay a min of 4 credits for each day. See the edit to my original post that makes all of this irrelevant in any case because almost every pilot operating these pairings is getting paid MMG regardless because they are so inefficient.

There is a minimum duty credit of 4 hours. or if there is no duty on a day away from base, then also 4 hours. We're happy to take this one to arbitration, but I'd suggest you'd need to show some language to support the assertion that there is a 4-credit minimum per calendar day that has a flight duty assigned.

There are no liberties being taken with contract language. We're following it exactly.

Hi tbalyx. You say min 4 credit per day is being given to pilots if no duty assigned. Please explain this 5 day pairing YVR-CUN-YVR where pilots are not getting min 4 daily credit on DAY 2,3,4.

Please see image below

I can't. Didn't even know we had a 4 day layover somewhere. That seems suspicious. In any case, if that pairing actually exists then it's not credited properly. I'll look into it.

[the_new_guy]

Again, the fact that this burns three days of a pilot's maximum of 18 works in the favour of the pilot, not the company.

There is no minimum credit for a calendar day if there is a duty assigned. See the example of a YUL redeye spanning 2 calendar days. It does not pay a min of 4 credits for each day. See the edit to my original post that makes all of this irrelevant in any case because almost every pilot operating these pairings is getting paid MMG regardless because they are so inefficient.

There is a minimum duty credit of 4 hours. or if there is no duty on a day away from base, then also 4 hours. We're happy to take this one to arbitration, but I'd suggest you'd need to show some language to support the assertion that there is a 4-credit minimum per calendar day that has a flight duty assigned.

There are no liberties being taken with contract language. We're following it exactly.

Hi tbalyx. You say min 4 credit per day is being given to pilots if no duty assigned. Please explain this 5 day pairing YVR-CUN-YVR where pilots are not getting min 4 daily credit on DAY 2,3,4.

Please see image below

I can't. Didn't even know we had a 4 day layover somewhere. That seems suspicious. In any case, if that pairing actually exists then it's not credited properly. I'll look into it.

Hi TB,

I think it's time someone looks at the reality of your pilot group. There are multiple instances of pairings such as the one pointed to here.

Yeg has October pairings at the end of the month that spanne 4 days and one of those has no duty, no credits.

They new bid packages for November are full of those 4-5 day pairings throughout the network. You can't say you're paying your pilots per cba, then someone points out a pairing that you didn't know about and you say it is not credited properly. I know you can't know of all the pairings, but maybe it's time that someone audits the entirety of the bid packages and sees what your pilots have been saying for close to a year now.

You can't say you're paying properly when you don't know.

[tbaylx]

Hi tbalyx. You say min 4 credit per day is being given to pilots if no duty assigned. Please explain this 5 day pairing YVR-CUN-YVR where pilots are not getting min 4 daily credit on DAY 2,3,4.

Please see image below

I can't. Didn't even know we had a 4 day layover somewhere. That seems suspicious. In any case, if that pairing actually exists then it's not credited properly. I'll look into it.

Hi TB,

I think it's time someone looks at the reality of your pilot group. There are multiple instances of pairings such as the one pointed to here.

Yeg has October pairings at the end of the month that spanne 4 days and one of those has no duty, no credits.

They new bid packages for November are full of those 4-5 day pairings throughout the network. You can't say you're paying your pilots per cba, then someone points out a pairing that you didn't know about and you say it is not credited properly. I know you can't know of all the pairings, but maybe it's time that someone audits the entirety of the bid packages and sees what your pilots have been saying for close to a year now.

You can't say you're paying properly when you don't know.

If only there was an email where pilots could reach out to management with concerns such as credit for pairings.
If anyone on this thread actually works for Flair, send it to the Chief Pilot email so we can actually look into it.

[digits_]

If only there was an email where pilots could reach out to management with concerns such as credit for pairings.
If anyone on this thread actually works for Flair, send it to the Chief Pilot email so we can actually look into it.

That ship sailed the moment your pilots felt the need to bring this issue out in the open on AvCanada. To an outsider who's interested in Flair, that sounds like a management failure. Your lack of reply to very specific questions as to why certain paragraphs don't apply in the mentioned situations, doesn't really help your position.

This is the kind of stuff future applicants are interested in. If it snowballs more, the press might be interested as well. First Flair loses aircraft over unpaid leases, now pilots claim they are not being paid properly. That story doesn't look good.

[the_new_guy]

I can't. Didn't even know we had a 4 day layover somewhere. That seems suspicious. In any case, if that pairing actually exists then it's not credited properly. I'll look into it.

Hi TB,

I think it's time someone looks at the reality of your pilot group. There are multiple instances of pairings such as the one pointed to here.

Yeg has October pairings at the end of the month that spanne 4 days and one of those has no duty, no credits.

They new bid packages for November are full of those 4-5 day pairings throughout the network. You can't say you're paying your pilots per cba, then someone points out a pairing that you didn't know about and you say it is not credited properly. I know you can't know of all the pairings, but maybe it's time that someone audits the entirety of the bid packages and sees what your pilots have been saying for close to a year now.

You can't say you're paying properly when you don't know.

If only there was an email where pilots could reach out to management with concerns such as credit for pairings.
If anyone on this thread actually works for Flair, send it to the Chief Pilot email so we can actually look into it.

Are you suggesting we bypass our MEC? This is supposed to be their job. I don't mind anyway, we just need to know.

[the_new_guy]

If only there was an email where pilots could reach out to management with concerns such as credit for pairings.
If anyone on this thread actually works for Flair, send it to the Chief Pilot email so we can actually look into it.

That ship sailed the moment your pilots felt the need to bring this issue out in the open on AvCanada. To an outsider who's interested in Flair, that sounds like a management failure. Your lack of reply to very specific questions as to why certain paragraphs don't apply in the mentioned situations, doesn't really help your position.

This is the kind of stuff future applicants are interested in. If it snowballs more, the press might be interested as well. First Flair loses aircraft over unpaid leases, now pilots claim they are not being paid properly. That story doesn't look good.

Hey digits,

I think it's more a failure of the union. And sure TB did miss a few questions but to his credit he's here anyway. I don't see that from a lot of managers, or even union members tbh

[digits_]

If only there was an email where pilots could reach out to management with concerns such as credit for pairings.
If anyone on this thread actually works for Flair, send it to the Chief Pilot email so we can actually look into it.

That ship sailed the moment your pilots felt the need to bring this issue out in the open on AvCanada. To an outsider who's interested in Flair, that sounds like a management failure. Your lack of reply to very specific questions as to why certain paragraphs don't apply in the mentioned situations, doesn't really help your position.

This is the kind of stuff future applicants are interested in. If it snowballs more, the press might be interested as well. First Flair loses aircraft over unpaid leases, now pilots claim they are not being paid properly. That story doesn't look good.

Hey digits,

I think it's more a failure of the union. And sure TB did miss a few questions but to his credit he's here anyway. I don't see that from a lot of managers, or even union members tbh

That's possible. I'm just describing what it looks like from an interested outside party. I hope you can figure it all out.

[tbaylx]

Hi TB,

I think it's time someone looks at the reality of your pilot group. There are multiple instances of pairings such as the one pointed to here.

Yeg has October pairings at the end of the month that spanne 4 days and one of those has no duty, no credits.

They new bid packages for November are full of those 4-5 day pairings throughout the network. You can't say you're paying your pilots per cba, then someone points out a pairing that you didn't know about and you say it is not credited properly. I know you can't know of all the pairings, but maybe it's time that someone audits the entirety of the bid packages and sees what your pilots have been saying for close to a year now.

You can't say you're paying properly when you don't know.

If only there was an email where pilots could reach out to management with concerns such as credit for pairings.
If anyone on this thread actually works for Flair, send it to the Chief Pilot email so we can actually look into it.

Are you suggesting we bypass our MEC? This is supposed to be their job. I don't mind anyway, we just need to know.

I am suggesting the fastest way to get things like that fixed is to bring it to the CP. You can ask your ALPA reps to bring it to me as well. Either way, we can't fix what we don't know about.

Now that i know about it I can also explain why that happened and what is happening to fix it.

[the_new_guy]

If only there was an email where pilots could reach out to management with concerns such as credit for pairings.
If anyone on this thread actually works for Flair, send it to the Chief Pilot email so we can actually look into it.

Are you suggesting we bypass our MEC? This is supposed to be their job. I don't mind anyway, we just need to know.

I am suggesting the fastest way to get things like that fixed is to bring it to the CP. You can ask your ALPA reps to bring it to me as well. Either way, we can't fix what we don't know about.

Now that i know about it I can also explain why that happened and what is happening to fix it.

So why did it happen?

It's been happening for awhile now, and it's far from a single pairing occurrence. If there's a good explanation for it I'm sure others will be as interested as I am in hearing about it.

[tbaylx]

Are you suggesting we bypass our MEC? This is supposed to be their job. I don't mind anyway, we just need to know.

I am suggesting the fastest way to get things like that fixed is to bring it to the CP. You can ask your ALPA reps to bring it to me as well. Either way, we can't fix what we don't know about.

Now that i know about it I can also explain why that happened and what is happening to fix it.

So why did it happen?

It's been happening for awhile now, and it's far from a single pairing occurrence. If there's a good explanation for it I'm sure others will be as interested as I am in hearing about it.

The schedule upload to NavBlue was corrupted and had to be added to the bid portal manually. The planning team was doing their best to get it all uploaded to NavBlue for the bid window opening. NavBlue doesn't correctly credit days away from base with no duty as they have been unable to set that up as of yet, so it requires manually adding RSV pucks on days away from base to generate a 4-hour credit.

That step was missed in the upload of the pairings. Once you so kindly pointed it out here, planning was made aware and will fix it.

This is a clear calendar day without a duty and so should have the 4 credit hours attached. This is not the same as the previous YVR/YKF pairing that has a duty assigned to each calendar day.

If you are aware of other incidents like this one, again please email your scheduling rep and/or the CP office and we will ensure that they are fixed. Or ask the question on our monthly townhalls. You're much less likely to get a prompt response to concerns on an AvCanada forum.

[the_new_guy]

I am suggesting the fastest way to get things like that fixed is to bring it to the CP. You can ask your ALPA reps to bring it to me as well. Either way, we can't fix what we don't know about.

Now that i know about it I can also explain why that happened and what is happening to fix it.

So why did it happen?

It's been happening for awhile now, and it's far from a single pairing occurrence. If there's a good explanation for it I'm sure others will be as interested as I am in hearing about it.

The schedule upload to NavBlue was corrupted and had to be added to the bid portal manually. The planning team was doing their best to get it all uploaded to NavBlue for the bid window opening. NavBlue doesn't correctly credit days away from base with no duty as they have been unable to set that up as of yet, so it requires manually adding RSV pucks on days away from base to generate a 4-hour credit.

That step was missed in the upload of the pairings. Once you so kindly pointed it out here, planning was made aware and will fix it.

This is a clear calendar day without a duty and so should have the 4 credit hours attached. This is not the same as the previous YVR/YKF pairing that has a duty assigned to each calendar day.

If you are aware of other incidents like this one, again please email your scheduling rep and/or the CP office and we will ensure that they are fixed. Or ask the question on our monthly townhalls. You're much less likely to get a prompt response to concerns on an AvCanada forum.

This is not my first choice, just so you know. The scheduling committee can't make anything happen stuck behind the current MEC. If reaching out to you is what the next step is then the pilots will if they know they can for issues like this. But they don't because CP is not supposed to have to deal with this. And I'm saying this with respect, as in the job is supposed to be done by someone else.

May I suggest that if you recommend this approach going forward, maybe a communication via official channels would serve the pilot group well.

And again, this is now on public forum because pilots have tried to have this change for months and months now. Using the right tools they are given, but the tools in questions just don't work.

[CaptDukeNukem]

I am suggesting the fastest way to get things like that fixed is to bring it to the CP. You can ask your ALPA reps to bring it to me as well. Either way, we can't fix what we don't know about.

Now that i know about it I can also explain why that happened and what is happening to fix it.

So why did it happen?

It's been happening for awhile now, and it's far from a single pairing occurrence. If there's a good explanation for it I'm sure others will be as interested as I am in hearing about it.

The schedule upload to NavBlue was corrupted and had to be added to the bid portal manually. The planning team was doing their best to get it all uploaded to NavBlue for the bid window opening. NavBlue doesn't correctly credit days away from base with no duty as they have been unable to set that up as of yet, so it requires manually adding RSV pucks on days away from base to generate a 4-hour credit.

Porter also uses NAVBLUE as a scheduling tool. It is by far the worst tool in my opinion. It constantly crashes, has very limited functions and looks like it should be run on MS-DOS.

Glad to hear that flair will make adjustments to pilots after this error has been discovered.

[tbaylx]

So why did it happen?

It's been happening for awhile now, and it's far from a single pairing occurrence. If there's a good explanation for it I'm sure others will be as interested as I am in hearing about it.

The schedule upload to NavBlue was corrupted and had to be added to the bid portal manually. The planning team was doing their best to get it all uploaded to NavBlue for the bid window opening. NavBlue doesn't correctly credit days away from base with no duty as they have been unable to set that up as of yet, so it requires manually adding RSV pucks on days away from base to generate a 4-hour credit.

That step was missed in the upload of the pairings. Once you so kindly pointed it out here, planning was made aware and will fix it.

This is a clear calendar day without a duty and so should have the 4 credit hours attached. This is not the same as the previous YVR/YKF pairing that has a duty assigned to each calendar day.

If you are aware of other incidents like this one, again please email your scheduling rep and/or the CP office and we will ensure that they are fixed. Or ask the question on our monthly townhalls. You're much less likely to get a prompt response to concerns on an AvCanada forum.

This is not my first choice, just so you know. The scheduling committee can't make anything happen stuck behind the current MEC. If reaching out to you is what the next step is then the pilots will if they know they can for issues like this. But they don't because CP is not supposed to have to deal with this. And I'm saying this with respect, as in the job is supposed to be done by someone else.

May I suggest that if you recommend this approach going forward, maybe a communication via official channels would serve the pilot group well.

And again, this is now on public forum because pilots have tried to have this change for months and months now. Using the right tools they are given, but the tools in questions just don't work.

If you can't get an answer through the regular channels then escalate it to the CP office. We'll deal with it. We want pilots to be paid correctly, and while there will always be plenty of things to complain about I'm sure, getting paid correctly shouldn't be one of them. Also an MEC member is a thankless volunteer job, so I woudl cut them a bit of slack. They are trying their best I'm sure with teh resources they have

[Serious Pilot]

Hello Flair peeps, how much does a junior FO make in a year?

[dontcallmeshirley]

Hello Flair peeps, how much does a junior FO make in a year?

Depends on how much they're making at their second job...

[the_new_guy]

Hello Flair peeps, how much does a junior FO make in a year?

73500$ base salary, no perdiems no overtime

If you want to work more we're short FOs at many bases so there's a lot of overtime available for you. GDO buyouts are paid double your rate and I know of 3 FOs at my base that are making North of 125k plus perdiems. That's for those that want the money.

But base 73.5k.

[TC.Enforcement]

Hello Flair peeps, how much does a junior FO make in a year?

Depends on how much they're making at their second job...

Anyone making 75k a year who needs to work a second job is just bad at finances.

[dumpsterfire]

Are Flair pilots blocked at 18 days?

[Arnie Pye]

Depends on how senior you are. Junior guys are definitely 18 days. From the looks of the November bid packs most of the senior guys will be close to that too. Not much flying going on next month.

[apples2apples]

Yikes!

[Montroyal]

Depends on how senior you are. Junior guys are definitely 18 days. From the looks of the November bid packs most of the senior guys will be close to that too. Not much flying going on next month.

China contract quality of life paired with Canadian pilot wages

Ouch!

[lament]

Anyone making 75k a year who needs to work a second job is just bad at finances.

how would you live with any kind of quality of life based in YVR or YYZ on 75k a year?

[Floop]

I think you might not win this one in arbitration, given the definition is a calendar day and for the purpose of that even though the duty begins on the second calendar day, it finishes on the third. You even state for the monthly total days worked it counts as three days, you seem to have it both ways. There is a min credit per calendar day and at the very least the credit assigned is the credit earned in that calendar day.
The company absolutely is taking advantage of no duty rig, period!

P.S. When the company takes liberties with contract language, I think you’ll find many pilots will take advantage of the only two days of sick time.. probably a higher percentage of book offs for said pairing.

Again, the fact that this burns three days of a pilot's maximum of 18 works in the favour of the pilot, not the company.

There is no minimum credit for a calendar day if there is a duty assigned. See the example of a YUL redeye spanning 2 calendar days. It does not pay a min of 4 credits for each day. See the edit to my original post that makes all of this irrelevant in any case because almost every pilot operating these pairings is getting paid MMG regardless because they are so inefficient.

There is a minimum duty credit of 4 hours. or if there is no duty on a day away from base, then also 4 hours. We're happy to take this one to arbitration, but I'd suggest you'd need to show some language to support the assertion that there is a 4-credit minimum per calendar day that has a flight duty assigned.

There are no liberties being taken with contract language. We're following it exactly.

Can you point out the clause that supports this interpretation of yours?

Don't let this be forgotten in the rest of the conversation. There's complete denial of clear clauses going on here.